Using the LSB Bootscripts

DJ Lucas dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue May 10 08:13:57 PDT 2011


Archaic <archaic at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:

>On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:25:50AM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote:
>> 
>>      * ifup - copy configuration file from /etc/network/$int/$file to
>
>> /run/network/$int/$file upon successful initialization of the
>interface.
>
>I believe /var/run is a more suitable place for this.
>http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#VARRUNRUNTIMEVARIABLEDATA

/var/run will be /run in FHS 3.0, LFS has already moved to the new layout, but I'd imagine that the compatibility symlink will be required for at least 3 years of not longer, so we could use /var/run to be compatible for a while...just trying to future proof and reduce cruft as much as possible.

We'll also need to account for this with my suggestion of mounting /run directly in rc (boot logging requires a tmpfs currently).
>
>>      * ifdown - source configuration files from /run/network/$int/*.
>>      * ifdown - if interface configuration files do not exist, ip
>addr 
>> flush $int, ip link set $int down, exit 0.
>
>There might be situations where manual modification of an existing
>interface was done leaving ip addr flush still a needed option even
>with
>a state file. I imagine this as generally a corner case, but I'm
>putting
>it out there in case it is considered a legitimate concern. I saw you
>mention ppp <snipped> and pppoe is still a valid use for it. I'm not
>sure how involved the scripts should get. Is grepping for a running
>dhcp
>client on that interface too far?

Possibly. If it was initialized outside of the standard method would be the arguement.

>
>>      * Add a copy of the MIT license file to bootscripts.
>
>Why MIT? These aren't book instructions.

Hmm, to change licenses, or rather define one outside the scope of the book, we'd need approval from all contributors. That is currently AFAIK Alexander, Archaic, Bruce, Dan, Jeremy, Matt, Michael Tremmor (IPFire), Nathan, and Myself. What license you have in mind?

>
>>      * Remove selective boot - personally I'd rather keep that in
>place 
>> simply because it was requested so many times in the past, but
>possibly 
>> disable the functionality by default?
>
>Disabled by default sound like a good compromise.

-- DJ


-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list